JUDGMENT : These seven writ petitions filed by the candidates failed in the Selection test, seeking similar relief basing on the similar question of fact and law are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For example, the relief sought for in WP(C) No. 158/2014 is quoted hereunder: “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that your Lordship, would be please: (i) Admit this Writ Petition. (ii) Issue Rule Calling upon the State respondents to show cause and call for the entire records of the selection process for detailed examination and scrutiny by this Hon?ble Court. (iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire selection process as being invalid, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and quashing the candidatures and appointments of the Respondents. (iv) Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the State Respondents to response to the representation submitted by the petitioners thereby examine and scrutinize the candidatures of the petitioners by the high level scrutinize committee as per the common judgment and order dated 16-08-2012 and segregate the tainted candidates who do not deserve to hold the post of the Assistant Teacher in Govt. L.P.School. (v) Alternatively, the names of the Petitioners be included in the list of qualified candidates after removing the manipulation made while selecting the qualified candidates to the post of Assistant Teachers in Govt. L.P.School, Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. (vi) Re-examine the score-sheet of the petitioners or entire selection process and remove the tainted candidates and appoint the petitioners if found eligible and deserving after making an enquiry into the matter same like the other 9 batch of Writ petitioners mentioned in paragraph 10 and 11 of this instant writ petition. (vii) And upon cause being shown and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the Rule absolute. (viii) And be further please to pass any such order/ orders as your Lordships deem fit and proper. And for which act of your kindness, your humble Petitioners shall ever pray.” 2. (vii) And upon cause being shown and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the Rule absolute. (viii) And be further please to pass any such order/ orders as your Lordships deem fit and proper. And for which act of your kindness, your humble Petitioners shall ever pray.” 2. Since the seven writ petitions are filed on the similar question and fact of law, in order to avoid the repetition of facts, the gist of the fact of the case in WP(C) No. 158/2014 is noted for reference for deciding the matters in issue between the parties in the present seven writ petitions. 3. The Deputy Inspector of Schools issued an advertisement dated 10-12-2008 inviting applications in Standard Form from eligible candidates to the post of “Asstt. Teachers” in the Government Lower Primary Schools in the scale of pay of Rs. 3450-80-3930-EB-90-4650-100-5650/- per month. The age limit prescribed in the said advertisement was that the candidates should not be less than 18 years of age and more than 27 years of age (32 years for SC/ST) on the 1st day of December, 2008. The candidates who were found to be eligible and qualified for the post were to appear for the personal interview to be conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the Government. 4. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 10-12-2008, the petitioner and others having requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Asstt. Teachers had applied for the said post of Asstt. Teachers in the Government Lower Primary Schools. It is the case of both the parties that the Government of Meghalaya prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of appointment of teachers in the Government Lower Primary Schools vide order dated 24-11-2008 (Annexure-III to the present writ petition). For easy reference, the said order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 24-11-2008 is quoted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION No. EDN. 360/85/Pt II/428 Dated Shillong the 24th November 2008. In supercession of Notification No. EDN.360/85/Pt II/360 dated 18/02/2005, the Governor of Meghalaya is pleased to prescribe the following procedure to be invariably adopted in all matters of appointment of teachers in Government L.P. Schools with immediate effect. THE ELIGILIBILITY TEST FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1. 360/85/Pt II/428 Dated Shillong the 24th November 2008. In supercession of Notification No. EDN.360/85/Pt II/360 dated 18/02/2005, the Governor of Meghalaya is pleased to prescribe the following procedure to be invariably adopted in all matters of appointment of teachers in Government L.P. Schools with immediate effect. THE ELIGILIBILITY TEST FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1. There shall be an Eligibility Test for all persons desirous of applying for appointment as L.P. School teachers and only persons who have passed the test shall be eligible for appointment as such L.P. School teachers; Provided that the following persons are exempted from the requirement to pass the aforesaid Eligibility Test:- (i) Persons possessing qualifications which are higher than the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as L.P. School teacher with not less than 45% marks in their degree examination. (ii) Persons who have successfully completed the course of training for L.P. School teachers conducted by District Institutes for Education and Training (DIETs), Normal Training Schools (NTSs), Basic Training Centres (BTCs) and Cherra Teachers? Training Centre (CTTC) and obtained the Junior Teachers? Training Certificate/Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education (DETE)/ Diploma in Education (D Ed.). (iii) Persons who possess the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as L.P. School teacher who have been teaching in L.P. Schools for a period of not less than 5 (five) years from the date of issue of this notification. 2. The Eligibility Test shall be conducted Sub-Division wise by the Education Department through the Directorate of Educational Research and Training. 3. The test shall be conducted as and when required. 4. The centres for the examination shall be at Shillong, Tura, Jowai, Williamnagar, Nongpoh, Nongstoin, Baghmara, Khliehriat, Amlarem, Sohra, Mairang, Mawkyrwat, Resubelpara, Dadenggiri and Ampati. ELIGIBILITY TO APPEAR IN THE TEST 5. Only persons who possess the minimum qualification for appointment as L.P. School teacher as prescribed by the Government from time to time are eligible to sit in the Test. PERIOD OF VALIDITY 6. The validity of the result of the Test shall be 3 years with effect from the date of announcement of the results or the attainment by the person concerned of the maximum age of recruitment as prescribed by Government from time to time whichever is earlier. WRITTEN EXAMINATION 7. The Eligibility Test shall consist of a Written Examination in the subjects indicated below to be followed by the Personal Interview. 8. WRITTEN EXAMINATION 7. The Eligibility Test shall consist of a Written Examination in the subjects indicated below to be followed by the Personal Interview. 8. The Written Examination shall consist of 2 (two) papers as follows:- Paper I English (50 marks) 100 marks Language (50 marks) Paper II Mathematics & Science(50) marks General Knowledge (50) marks 100 marks Total 200 marks The pass mark for each paper shall be 40% 9. The duration of the Written Examination shall be 3 (three) hours in each paper. Paper I - 9.00 a.m. – 12.00 noon Paper II - 1.00 p.m. – 4.00 p.m. 10. The Question Papers for the Written Examination shall be prepared by the Director, Educational Research and Training. 11. Invigilation shall be done by the S.Is. of Schools, Social Education Organizers and Lady Social Education Organizers. In addition, the D.I. of Schools shall also draft the services of Upper Primary School teachers in his area. 12. The Answer Scripts shall be evaluated by the Director of Educational Research and Training and his/her Officers. PERSONAL INTERVIEW 13. Only those candidates who have secured the pass marks in both the papers shall be called for Personal Interview. 14. The date, time and venue of the Personal Interview shall be widely publicized through newspapers and other media in the concerned Sub-Division. 15. The full marks for the Personal Interview shall be 50 (fifty) and the distribution of the marks will be as follows:- (i) Academic Qualification 20 marks. (ii) Personality 10 marks. (iii) Ability to express himself/herself 10 marks. (iv) Suitability as a Teacher, which will include practical teaching 10 marks. Total 50 marks. The pass marks shall be 20 marks out of 50 marks. 16. The various educational qualifications possessed by the candidates who have passed the Written test shall be given due weightage as follows:- (a) PU/HSSLC/ Class XII passed 1 st Division 5 marks 2 nd Division 3 marks 3 rd Division 1 marks (b) Graduation 1 st Class 5 marks 2 nd Class 3 marks Simple Pass 1 mark (c) Post Graduation 1 st Class 5 marks 2 nd Class 3 marks Simple Pass 1 mark (d) DIET/BTC 1 st Class 5 marks 2 nd Class 3 marks PERSONAL INTERVIEW BOARD 17. The Personal Interview shall be conducted by an Interview Board to be constituted and notified by the Government as follows:- (i) Director, Elementary and Mass Education or representative from the Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education. (ii) Inspector of Schools concerned. (iii) Nominee of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned. (iv) The Nodal Officer from the Directorate of Educational Research and Training in-charge of the concerned Sub-Division. APPLICATION FORMS AND EXAMINATION FEE 18. The application forms shall be accompanied by the following: (i) Examination Fee of Rs. 350/- per candidate. (ii) 2 Passport size photographs duly attested by a Magistrate. (iii) All certificates and mark sheets in support of educational qualification, age, community/ tribe etc. duly attested by a gazetted officer. 19. The intending candidates may submit their application forms in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned who will in turn forward all such applications to the Director, Educational Research and Training for necessary screening. 20. The list of eligible candidates will be displayed in the notice board of the offices of the D.I. of Schools, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and the Block Development Officer/s concerned. 21. For the information of all concerned, wide publicity will be given through newspapers and other media that the result of screening and the names of those eligible to appear in the Eligibility Test and the date, time and venue of the Written Examination may be seen in the notice boards of the offices mentioned at Para 20. RESULT OF THE ELIGIBILITY TEST 22. A candidate who has passed the Personal Interview shall be declared to have passed the Eligibility Test. 23. The results of the Eligibility Test shall be given wide publicity by announcement through the media. CERTIFICATE OF ELIGBILITY 24. A certificate to the effect that the concerned candidate has qualified for appointment as Primary School teacher shall be issued to him under the signature of the Director, Educational Research and Training. FILLING UP OF VACANCIES 25. 23. The results of the Eligibility Test shall be given wide publicity by announcement through the media. CERTIFICATE OF ELIGBILITY 24. A certificate to the effect that the concerned candidate has qualified for appointment as Primary School teacher shall be issued to him under the signature of the Director, Educational Research and Training. FILLING UP OF VACANCIES 25. The vacancy which may arise in any school by reason of creation of a new post or redeployment of a post or retirement or death of the incumbent teacher or for any other reason shall be informed by the D.I. of Schools concerned to the Director, Elementary and Mass Education who will in turn inform the Government along with the number of sanctioned posts and the details of enrolment in the school and thereafter seek the approval of the Government to take steps to fill up the same through interview of candidates who have passed the Eligibility Test and those who have been exempted from passing the Eligibility Test as per Para 1 above. 26. On receipt of the Government approval, the DEME through the DI of Schools concerned, shall notify in the notice board of the said school and the office of the said DI of Schools, the availability of such vacancy. 27. Thereafter, the Personal or Walk in Interview shall be held in the Sub-Divisional or Sub-Divisional (Sadar) Headquarter under whose jurisdiction the school concerned is located on a date and time and at a venue to be fixed by the DEME and notified and publicized through the DI of Schools concerned. 28. 27. Thereafter, the Personal or Walk in Interview shall be held in the Sub-Divisional or Sub-Divisional (Sadar) Headquarter under whose jurisdiction the school concerned is located on a date and time and at a venue to be fixed by the DEME and notified and publicized through the DI of Schools concerned. 28. Interested and eligible candidates may bring their certificates and testimonials in support of their educational qualification, age, community, etc and appear at the interview; Provided that the candidates should be within the following age limits as on 1st January of the year on which the post is advertised:- (i) In the case of candidates who have been mentioned at sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph 1 of this notification, the candidate should not be less than 18 years of age and should not have crossed 27 years of age (relaxable upto 32 years in the case of SC/ST candidates); (ii) In the case of candidates mentioned at sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1 of this notification, the candidates should have first entered service (contractual or otherwise) within the age limit mentioned at sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph; SELECTION COMMITTEE 29. The Selection Committee shall consist of the following members:- (i) SDO/EAC of the subdivision Concerned Chairman (ii) Deputy DEME Member Secretary (iii) Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster Of any Govt. UPS to be nominated By DEME Member (iv) Head teacher of the Government LPS where the vacancy occurs Member (v) Lecturer of a DIET located in the District concerned to be nominated By the Director ERT Member 30. The office of the DI of Schools concerned shall render all necessary secretarial help and other assistance to the Selection Committee in the conduct of the interview. 31. The full marks for this personal interview shall be 50 (fifty) and the distribution of marks shall be as follows:- (i) Academic Qualification 10 marks (ii) Professional Qualification 10 marks (iii) Suitability 10 marks (iv) Experience 10 marks (v) Micro-teaching ability 10 marks The following weightage will be applicable:- Under the “Academic Qualification” head (i) Degree level (45%+) and above 10 marks (ii) Class XII passed 1st Division 7 marks 2nd Division 5 marks 3rd Division 2 marks Under the “Professional Qualification” head (iii) SET qualified candidate 10 marks (iv) BTC/DIET passed 8 marks (v) B.Ed 5 marks Under the “Experience” head (vi) Contractual teachers (one account of Experience) 7 marks MERIT LIST 31. After Personal Interview is conducted the list of recommended candidates in order of merit shall be prepared by the Selection Committee and the same shall be sent by the Director, Elementary & Mass Education to the Education Department for approval. Sd/- (L.Roy) Commissioner & Secretary Government of Meghalaya, Education Department”. 5. It is stated that the selection test of the candidates for the said post had been conducted and the list of the qualified candidates was published on 23-12-2009. The Government of Meghalaya had also issued the appointment orders for appointing the selected candidates as teachers in the Government L.P. School. The 9(nine) writ petitions being WP(C) No. 106(SH)/2010, WP(C) No. 51(SH)/2010, WP(C)No. 52(SH)/2010, WP(C) No. 88 (SH)/2010, WP(C)No.408(SH)/2010, WP(C) No.267 (SH)/2010, WP(C) No. 50 (SH)/2010, WP(C) No. 15 (SH)/ 2010 and WP(C) No. 182 (SH)/2010 had been filed by the failed candidates challenging the said select list dated 23-12-2009 and also for quashing the entire selection process alleging manipulations, partiality and illegality committed by the Selection Committee in the selection process. The 9(nine) writ petitions had been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment and order dated 21-10-2011 directing the CBI to enquire into the allegations of the petitioners made in the said writ petitions. Para No. 40 of the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21-10-2011 read as follows: “40. For what has been stated in the foregoing, all the writ petitions are allowed. The CBI is, therefore, directed to inquire into the allegations of the petitioners in Paper Mark-„A?, Paper Mark-„B? and Paper Mark-„C? annexed to WP(C) No. 106(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 88(SH) of 2010, the allegations in paragraphs No. 5 and 9 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 52(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 13 and 16 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 408(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 5,6 and 7 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 51(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 15 and 16 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 15(SH) 2010, the allegations made in Paper Mark-„A?, Paper Mark-„B? and Paper Mark-„C? and Paper Mark-„C? of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 267(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 5,6 and 7 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 50(SH) 2010 and the allegations made in Paper Mark-„A? and page 86 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 182(SH) of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and submit the inquiry report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The original files relating to the DPC proceedings bearing No. DEME-2/Per/2009 (Amlarem), No. DEME-8A/Per/2009 (Jowai), No. DEME-1/Per/2009/1 (Shillong), No. DEME/GA/8/Appt/2008 (Jowai), No. DEME/GA/Appt/7/2008 (Dedengre) and No. DEME-3/Per/2009 (Tura) shall be kept by the Registry under sealed cover and shall be handed over to the CBI as and when required after duly obtaining their acknowledgment thereof. On the basis of the inquiry report so submitted, the respondent authorities shall take necessary and consequential actions on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the CBI including cancellation of the entire selection processes and the appointments already made in connection therewith and re-starting of the recruitment process to fill up the posts in question within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the State-respondents, they are at liberty to approach this Court again for further and appropriate orders. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs. Communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong for necessary compliance. It is expected that the State-respondents extend cooperation to the CBI for smooth and effective inquiry into the matters”. 6. The respondents in the said 9(nine) writ petitions had filed the writ appeals being No. WA. No. (SH) 52/2011, WA. No. (SH) 55/2011, WA. No. (SH) 56/2011, WA. No. (SH) 57/2011, WA. No. (SH) 59/2011, WA. No. (SH) 60/2011, WA. No. (SH) 61/2011, WA. No. (SH) 62/2011, WA. No. (SH) 53/2011, WA. No. 63 (SH) /2011 and WA.No. 65 (SH)/2011. The said writ appeals also had been disposed of by the learned Division Bench vide common judgment and order dated 16-08-2012. The operative portions of the said common judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 16-08-2012 read as follows: “29. No. (SH) 62/2011, WA. No. (SH) 53/2011, WA. No. 63 (SH) /2011 and WA.No. 65 (SH)/2011. The said writ appeals also had been disposed of by the learned Division Bench vide common judgment and order dated 16-08-2012. The operative portions of the said common judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 16-08-2012 read as follows: “29. Hence, taking into consideration the above and by balancing the circumstances, in our opinion, cause of justice would be met, if the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department is directed to constitute a High Level Scrutiny Committee of Officials without any stigma to scrutinize and review the records regarding the candidature of the selected and unselected candidates involved within the ambit and scope of connected writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 106(SH)/2010, 51(SH)/2010, 52(SH)/2010, 88(SH)/2010, 408(SH)/2010, 267(SH)/2010, 50(SH)/2010, 15(SH)/2010 and 182(SH)/2010 so as to ascertain the legality/basis of such selection or non-selection, as the case may be, and thereafter by segregating the tainted candidates from the non-tainted, take appropriate actions in accordance with law to offer appointment/confirm appointments of duly selected candidates whether already appointed or not and also terminate the candidature/appointment of the ineligible candidates and appoint eligible candidates including the writ petitioners, if found suitable. While undertaking this exercise the authorities shall also take beneficial assistance and guidance of the findings, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI in its enquiry report now lying at the custody of the State Authorities. Needless to say, it will also be the duty of the State Government not to spare any officer or authority, howsoever high he may be, if any deliberate complicity is found in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process”. 7. On perusal of the operative portions of the common judgment and order of the learned Single Bench dated 21-10-2011 and learned Division Bench dated 16-08-2012, it is clear that the directions of the learned Division Bench in the said common judgment and order dated 16-08-2012 are confined only to the writ petitioners of the said 9(nine) writ petitions. Long after the disposal of the said 9(nine) writ petitions by the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21-10-2011 and also the said writ appeals by a common judgment and order by the learned Division Bench dated 16-08-2012, the present writ petitioners had filed the present writ petitions. Long after the disposal of the said 9(nine) writ petitions by the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21-10-2011 and also the said writ appeals by a common judgment and order by the learned Division Bench dated 16-08-2012, the present writ petitioners had filed the present writ petitions. The respondents had filed the affidavit-in-opposition contending that the present writ petitions which had been filed after a considerable delay are liable to be dismissed at the thresh-hold and also stated that the writ petitioners who were the fence sitters cannot take the advantage of the said common judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 16-08-2012 passed in the said writ appeals inasmuch as the directions of the learned Single Bench and learned Division Bench are confined to the writ petitioners of the said 9(nine) writ petitions. This Court had carefully perused the pleadings of the petitioners in the present writ petition and affirmed that no reason had been given for considerable delay in approaching this Court for challenging the select list which was published on 23-12-2009 and also for the direction to examine and scrutinize the candidature of the petitioners by a High Level Scrutiny Committee as per common judgment and order dated 16-08-2012 passed by the learned Division Bench in the said writ appeals. 8. The Apex Court in Rup Diamond vrs Union of India: (1989) 2 SCC 356 held that the writ petitioners who were sitting on the fence till somebody else takes up the matter to the Court cannot be given the benefit of the relief granted in the writ petitions which were filed promptly. (SCC page 356-357) in Rup Diamond’s case (Supra) read as follows: “Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after almost a year after the first rejection. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after almost a year after the first rejection. As observed by the Court in Durga Prashad case (Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports: (1969) 1 SCC 185 ), the exchange position of this country and the policy of the government regarding international trade varies from year to year. In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners' case in any such appeal.” 9. The Apex Court is of the similar view in Jagdish Lal vrs State of Haryana: (1997) 6 SCC 538 and re-affirmed the rule if a person choose to sit over the matter and wake up after the decision of the Court, then such persons cannot stand to benefit (SCC p 542 in Jagdish Lal’s case (Supra) read as follows: “The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Virpal Singh Chauhan case Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813. The appellants' desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage”. 10. The Apex Court in Union of India vrs C.K Dharagupta: (1997) 3 SCC 395 held that : “9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi ( R.P Joshi v. Union of India, OA No. 497 of 1986 decided on 17-03-1987) gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case (Supra). In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17-3-1987 could only be given to Joshi case (supra) and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief.” 11. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case (Supra). In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17-3-1987 could only be given to Joshi case (supra) and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief.” 11. The Apex Court in Government of West Bengal vrs Tarun K. Roy: (2004) 1 SCC 347 held that the respondents are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and lapses on their part in filing the writ petitions. (SCC p 359-360 para 34) in Tarun K.Roy’s case (Supra) read as follows: “34. The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar (State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 841 : (1991) 17 ATC 261). The plea of delay, which Mr. Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others there from who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law.” 12. The Apex Court in UP Jal Nigam and Anr vrs Jaswant Singh and Anr: (2006) 11 SCC 464 held that the petitioners who are non-vigilant in invoking the protection of their right cannot be heard after delay on the ground that same relief should be granted as was granted to other persons similarly situated, but who are vigilant of their right. Paras 13 and 16 of the SCC in UP Jal Nigam’s case (Supra) read as follows: “13. Paras 13 and 16 of the SCC in UP Jal Nigam’s case (Supra) read as follows: “13. In view of the statement of law as summarized above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents has acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the Court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence? 16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the Court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the Court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay & are continuing in service. They are as follows: 1. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay & are continuing in service. They are as follows: 1. Shri Bhawani Sewak Shukla 2. Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai 3. Shri Girija Shanker 4. Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshresht 5. Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal 6. Shri Pradumn Prashad Mishra 7. Shri Banke Bihari Pandey 8. Shri Yashwant Singh 9. Shri Chandra Shekhar And the following persons filed Writ Petitions before retirement but no stay order was granted. 1. Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal (WP No. 35384 of 2005 vide order dated 5-5-2005) 2. Shri R.R. Gautam (WP No. 45495 of 2005 vide order dated 15-6-2005).” 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitioners, who are the fence sitters, approached this Court after a considerable delay for questioning the said select list dated 23-12-2009 and also for extending them the benefit of the common judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 16-08-2012 passed in the said 11(eleven) writ appeals which are confined only to the writ petitioners of the said 9(nine) writ petitions who are vigilant of their right and promptly approached this Court. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the present writ petitions cannot be granted to the writ petitioners who are fence sitters and woke up after a considerable delay for taking the hard earned benefits of others who are prompt and vigilance of their rights. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed.